Verified answer

The best way to answer something like this is typically point by point, but IMO you're on entirely the wrong track in your method of asking a lot of the questions. You start off by asking why, which assumes purpose, then ask if there is a purpose and meaning.

>Why is there something rather than nothing?

"Something" and "Nothing" are conceptual, philosophical terms that figures like Hegel have taken great pains to define, but do they actually have any real meaning in the concrete sense? Just because we can generalize existence into things and imagine a state in which things don't exist, does NOT imply that a state in which things didn't exist was ever a possibility. The Bible says that the universe started out empty, but if we ignore that then we can state there's something, because there always was something and the alternative ("nothingness") is an intrinsically meaningless idea.

>Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet?

Is there? I hadn't noticed. The idea that human consciousness is something unique and special is unprovable. The idea that human "intelligence" has a correspondence to objective reality, to Truth, is due entirely to egotistical flaws in the human psychological consistency. These flaws benefit our survival as a species and as such have developed as a result of evolution (or for the benefit of the theist I'll add the possibility of the unintelligent design of a foolish or mentally unstable creator). The idea that human thought has a direct correspondence to an objective reality is however (as unfortunate as it is for us) demonstratively false.

>Is there any meaning to this life? If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found?

Not intrinsically. The meaning that exists in our lives is the one WE create. If something is meaningful to us, if we choose to ascribe meaning to something, then it has meaning. Meaning is not something we need to seek, but rather something we build through our actions, choices and attitudes.

>Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end?

Albert Camus said that the only relevant question in philosophy is that of suicide. Should one choose to live in an absurd world or opt out? "Lead" in the cosmic sense is an inappropriate word choice in the context of a discussion of atheism. Does it make sense to build a hospital and use it to save lives when the sun will eventually die? Is there any meaning in such an action? The universe doesn't give it one, but a person could gain satisfaction, wealth, and public acclaim from such an act...as such it would be easy to see a point at the human level.

>How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier?

If a literal understanding of the Bible is the transcendent signifier you're talking about for the theist, then there's no such thing as a good person.

>If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions,

If you're not talking about the Bible, then I'd argue that even for theists they aren't social constructions or opinions, but rather shadows. Society clearly DOESN'T have a clear concept of good, evil, right and wrong. If it did people wouldn't be able to argue about the morality of things like the death penalty and abortion. Everyone would agree.

>whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong?

Either go with your gut, or consider all options and do whatever will leave you the fewest regrets. Ideally both at once.

>If you are content within atheism,

It merely seems the least destructive possibility. If your typical Christian were right, I'd have to be a Satanist and probably a mass murderer. So I CHOOSE to have FAITH that there is no god, because it's convenient and allows me to live a life of my choosing rather than be bound to do things I don't really want to do.

>what circumstances would serve to make you open to other answers?

Who says I'm not open. If you could give a compelling reason to need a Berdyaevian type deity for instance I'd be okay with that. I don't see any particular point to it, but if my world view or sanity required it for some reason I could be okay with a God who instead of being the all-powerful creator on high was the most afflicted suffering beside me and knowing my pain. I can see how such a view could provide comfort. I just don't find it all that important.

Why is there something instead of nothing (like this claimed "god" to begin with) if there IS a god?

God believers have no answer to that question...so what's the difference?

Yes, our ideas of "good" and "bad" are mostly social constructs (along with some evolved instincts and some common sense -- if you're alive, it doesn't take an imagined god to figure out that NOT being alive is "bad").

"...whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong?"

Nobody's "opinion." Figure it out for yourself, with a few seconds of rational thought.

There probably are no answers to most of your "why" questions, because there probably is no "why" to begin with. We know how intelligent lived evolved on this planet, for instance, and there really is no "why." It's the natural result of natural processes, that's all. Why do you assume there is a "why?"

Look, this is really simple: there is no evidence of any kind that any "god" exists. So there's no reason whatsoever to believe one does. Your own personal desire to have "meaning" is your issue, not everyone else's. I make my own meaning, and I'm perfectly happy and satisfied with that -- and I don't have to make up imaginary gods to fill in the gaps of human knowledge.

Peace.

There is conscious, intelligent life on this planet because of abiogenesis and evolution, and no there's no meaning to life except for the one each individual prescribes to their own.

Human history has led us out of caves and onto spaceships; that's called progress, so no it's not in vain.

You don't need a God to understand right from wrong. Things like murder, rape, etc destroy social cohesion which hurts our chances of survival of a species and therefore evolution has selected against those actions. We have evolved empathy and higher reasoning which allows us to sort out right from wrong; no God needed. Btw, look up Euphythro's Dilemma for why an idea of objective morality handed down from God is a ridiculous notion.

Abraham Lincoln existed because we have contemporary accounts of his life and actions and vast amounts of credible evidence. The only evidence we have for the existence of Jesus Christ is hearsay and the earliest evidence is based on works that were decades after he died.

Btw, it's cute that you believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that God condoned slavery, rape, genocide and theft. What a loving God you believe in, thank goodness he does not exist.

The Bible is a poor example to distinguish good from evil. The Christian God constantly demands slaughter and bloodshed.

I would prefer Death to be the end, actually. I have no desire for an afterlife.

I know I didn't address all your questions, but I'm sleepy.

EDIT: There is substantial evidence that Abraham Lincoln existed, the biggest being the dissolution of slavery (Emancipation Proclamation, anyone?).

RE-EDIT: And when you think about it, "good" and "evil" are subjective. It depends on your own point of view. What you perceive as "good" I might perceive as "evil" or "bad" and vice versa.

Numerous questions. I'll answer them in a few chunks:

First, you assume that there is a 'why' to the universe. That is merely an assumption. Many things have no purpose, save the purpose that we attribute to them. Some things just ARE.

I happen to think that we give our lives meaning by living them, and that nothing has inherent value, but only that value that we bestow upon it by our desire to possess it.

'Good' and 'evil' are both suggestive concepts, altered by circumstance. One act may be considered 'evil' by some, and perfectly acceptable by others; for that matter, an action may be 'evil' to a person in one instance, but 'good' in another. Personally, the only 'sin' that I accept is the unjust encroachment upon another person's freedom to act as they desire.

Lastly, I am open to other answers - as long as those answers pass tests of logic and rationality, and have some sort of credible, unambiguous evidence supporting them.

[edit]

"Also if atheists were being true to atheism they wouldn't and shouldn't give two hoots about religion..

But they do, think about that one.."

If you actually DID think about that statement, you would realize its hypocrisy. Not accepting something as true does not mean that you cannot be interested in it, either out of intellectual curiosity, or because it can have a direct and major impact on your own life. For instance, you might not have any interest in politics - but I'd be willing to bet my next year's salary that despite that lack of interest, you would sit up and pay attention if you heard about a bill outlawing Christianity.

None of those questions require a god for an answer any more than they require a mermaid or a centaur.

There just is. If things were different, they'd be different.

We create our own meaning.

What human history leads to is not known at this time, but if it is to extend beyond the inevitable destruction of this planet, it is up to us, not to some mythical critter.

Is life in vain because it ends? Well, when you make love, is it pointless because it eventually ends? Is a ballet or a baseball game less enjoyable because they do not go on eternally?

Are you saying you don't understand that rape and murder are wrong without being told so? Would you torture a child if you did not think a magic man in the sky did not want you to? If gods keep us moral, please explain the horrors of the inquisition, the passionate hatred of Jews Hitler claimed was on the behalf of his God, the Christian slave owners of the American south who raped, whipped and cruelly used other people with the blessing of their Bible god and the current mistreatment and oppression of women throughout the Muslim world. How about the ill treatment of gays over the centuries that is based purely on religious intolerance? Compassion and reason are all the guides we need for morality. We evolved to be intelligent pro-social animals because those traits benefited us. They still benefit human societies and that is reason enough. But think of it this way too; This is my only life, my only time to be. My actions define me. Why wouldn't I want to be an honorable person who seeks to pay forward the favors done for me by my ancestors by benefiting future generations? Why squander my time here as one of the rare beings (as far as we know) who gets to be a bit of the cosmos that can contemplate itself?

Even if I were not content with the obvious lack of gods, it would not change my lack of belief in them as I do not believe things just to satisfy myself. I do not believe in gods because there is no evidence of them, no need of them and no rational argument in favor of believing in them. Honesty trumps comfort for an honest person.

The only circumstance that would cause me to believe in gods is if there were conclusive evidence of gods, rather than none at all. However, none has ever been presented and I do not anticipate it being presented as gods are as make believe as pixies and cherubs.

Open to other answers? Atheism is not an answer. It is merely a lack of belief in just one of the many proposed magical critters superstitious people have believed in throughout our history. We no more need god belief than we need centaur belief to find answers. For that we need inquiring minds capable of critical thought.

Time to grow up and leave imaginary friends in the nursery, don't you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkbDUc9HBA

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-god-who-wasnt-t...

Don't pretend like religion actually gives answers...please...

"they choose to believe Abraham Lincoln Existed "

Are

you

*******

kidding

me

.

How can you compare something with 0 evidence at all with a person of which a fiew 100 kings, ministers and other important figures mentioned in the same timeframe.

Hell we even have handwritings of him.

This is hard for the religious to understand so I will type slowly. Just because science can't explain everything or there is no logical explanation for something is NOT...I repeat...NOT a blanket endorsement for "goddidit". Not everything is explainable. And I am always open to proof of anything. But keep in mind that the proof lies with the claimant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If you ask philosophical questions on this site you will receive insults instead of philosophical answers. It seems most of our members are so uneducated they consider philosophy as an attack or insult.

How to figure out good or bad, right or wrong?

You get a raise at work -- good, you're happy. You believe that if others got a raise too, they'd be just as happy. You've witnessed such before as well.

You get a pay cut -- bad, you're sad. You believe that if others got a pay cut too, they'd be just as sad as you are. You've witnessed such before as well.

You have someone steal something you own -- you feel that is wrong. You believe that if others got something stolen they'd feel they have been wronged as well.

You have that stolen item returned -- you feel that it was the right thing to be done. You believe that if others had things stolen returned to them they'd feel it was right as well.

Basically, above "social constructions" it is merely our ability to sympathize with others. We're able to put ourselves in their shoes and "feel it." If someone just lost their entire family -- we "feel" bad for them. Not because we lost our family, but because we can imagine what we'd feel like if we were in their shoes.

Edit:

Atheists believe Abraham Lincoln existed because of...oh, I don't know...this maybe?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44...

And, you forgot to mention Ishmael.